Lex Tut Blog

* iii) Yes he considered all the facts he was given but he did not consider that the facts he was given could be incorrect or not well researched. At the time he made the decision with the facts he was given it was accurate but when the facts changed that overrode the ruling he made.

i) The regulation initially used was not incorrect but when the facts changed the interpretation of the regulations also had to change. This meant that the guidelines he used in order to make the decisions were no longer correct, which undermined the basis of the decision in the first place.

* Money – small organisation versing a huge logging company. They had a lack of funds and an inability to gain more, whereas the logging company had deep pockets. Therefor they can be financially stopped into bringing the case.

Support – has local support but no state support because it was economically detrimental to stop the logging. Without a major support system, it would be difficult to gain any traction with the courts.

Proof – sound scientific investigations had not been performed and evidence of endangered species was slim. Since the studies were not properly conducted, there was a lack of evidence to not only what existed but into the areas that they existence stemmed. In addition, later research was rushed and the evidence was not properly gathered nor could many of the details be replicated or legitimacy of the reports proven.

Time and manpower – many people involved have day jobs and lack of knowledge in the area of the law that they are trying to peruse. This means they have other obligations and no not have unlimited time and resources to dedicate to their cause, such as the logging company would.

*

1. Other logging of older forests could be stopped either for research or permanently depending on the outcome of the investigation

2. If they lose, it could stop other forests from being protected in the future due to precedent

3. Economically, it...